Mason v. Sudam
New York Court of Chancery
[ * 173 ] THE bill, in this case, was to set aside a conveyance made to the defendants Sudam and Elmendorf, under an ^execution directed to the sheriff of Ulster county. B. Gar-denier, being indebted to the executors of N. Evertson, deceased, (plaintiffs,) in the sum of 2,000 dollars, on the 5th of October, 1807, executed a mortgage to them of certain lands in Hurley, in the county of Ulster.
Read the full summary
[ * 173 ] THE bill, in this case, was to set aside a conveyance made to the defendants Sudam and Elmendorf, under an ^execution directed to the sheriff of Ulster county. B. Gar-denier, being indebted to the executors of N. Evertson, deceased, (plaintiffs,) in the sum of 2,000 dollars, on the 5th of October, 1807, executed a mortgage to them of certain lands in Hurley, in the county of Ulster. The executors, after-wards, filed a bill to foreclose the mortgage, which was taken pro confesso. They stated that they were ignorant that the mortgaged premises were encumbered by any judgment until the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There are several objections to the sale by the executors of David Rea, each of which appears to me to be well founded.
[ * 180 ]
1. The sale was not authorized by the act of the 11th of April, 1808. That act only intended to authorize the executors to finish those executions of which “ the execution had been commenced by their testator, and had not been completed.” This was the object of their application to the legislature, and the act was not intended to be broader than the case required. It is most reasonable to give it such construction, for there was no necessity of any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fuller v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rother v. MonahanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895